The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

"Canada has a new intellectual star"



 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are so many Peterson talks, interviews and articles out there right now. It is difficult to keep up.





 
tenor.gif
 
Devout Pessimist said:
Click to expand...

Hehe, what a sap. I understand why some leftists are annoyed with the cult of personality that seems to have sprung up around him and I think some people like him for the wrong reasons and I do disagree with some of what he says. But personally I'm glad a guy like him is popular among the right, I much prefer him over guys like Ben Shapiro and Stephan Molyneux even guys on the left like Sam Harris. He's not a polemicist at heart and that's refreshing.

However, I think he misdiagnosis the problem a bit here. I don't really think its feminism that's leading these mean astray. Most men don't give a fuck about feminism or the academic debate he's embroiled in. I really think its the lack of initiation milestones and positive fraternal organizations. Things like conscription in Europe and marriage in traditional cultures acted as initiations into institutions that turned boys into men. I'm not saying we need to bring those things back but since nothing filled the void they left young men sort of wander out of adolescence into young adulthood and beyond without clear direction.

When it comes to fraternal organizations we still have them(the military, sports, fraternities) but they're the exception in that most young men aren't funneled into them and they're not always positive since they're not designed or approached with the idea of providing positive fraternal atmosphere. The classic, stereotypical fraternity is a great example of a toxic fraternal atmosphere which advances a perverse value set. Gangs are another one though they're obviously not a formal institution. Its very common to hear guys who come from disadvantaged backgrounds to talk about how sports or the military were a positive influence in their life when other guys from their neighborhood fell in with the wrong crowd and I think its because a positive fraternal atmosphere can have a really transformative effect on boys/men.
 
Devout Pessimist said:
Click to expand...


The author of this article cites an unfavorable review of 12 Rules for Life written by Julian Baggini for the Financial Times. If anyone needs confirmation that not everyone who reads shit on the Internet just swallows it with their brains on auto-pilot, check out the comments section:

https://www.ft.com/content/40c05b84-f7a7-11e7-a4c9-bbdefa4f210b

If the link doesn't work, just Google it and it'll come up.

Kafir-kun said:
I think he misdiagnosis the problem a bit here. I don't really think its feminism that's leading these mean astray. Most men don't give a fuck about feminism or the academic debate he's embroiled in. I really think its the lack of initiation milestones and positive fraternal organizations.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like you reject the idea that a/the cause of the "lack of initiation milestones and positive fraternal organizations" is (the corruption/perversion of) feminism.* If that's true, then how would you explain the disintegration/vanishing of those things? Mind you, this isn't a "gotcha" question. I'm just curious.

*Insert "So what you're saying is..." :D
 
Bullitt68 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like you reject the idea that a/the cause of the "lack of initiation milestones and positive fraternal organizations" is (the corruption/perversion of) feminism.* If that's true, then how would you explain the disintegration/vanishing of those things? Mind you, this isn't a "gotcha" question. I'm just curious.

*Insert "So what you're saying is..." :D
Click to expand...
Well that wasn't Peterson's argument, he was saying its the belittling and scapegoating of young men by radical feminists that has lead them to where they are now and not that feminism, intentionally or otherwise, eroded the importance of fraternal organizations and initiation milestones.

I don't necessarily reject your idea here but I'd have to see you argue it convincingly first. I'm not exactly sure why this happened but I think it occurred unintentionally as society moved away from traditional institutions and communal structures.

Conscription was, and is in the few countries that keep it, one of the last great initiation rites for men and maybe its because its not really a traditional idea as evidenced by the fact that its modern form was pioneered by post-revolutionary France and stuck around for a while due to necessity. But the thing is people don't like being drafted for the most part so you generally see countries that have it either really, really need it(Estonia, Israel) or really don't need it(Nordic countries) and thus their conscripts don't really fear seeing war and have less incentive to abolish it. Otherwise people would rather be rid of it, whatever benefits be damned. And to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying we should bring it back wherever its been abolished.

Something similar happened in the Islamic world and you can't necessarily blame feminism there. Back in the day Sufism was an integral part of social life as to be a Sunni meant you accepted a creed(Ash'ari, Mu'zila), followed a school of law(Maliki, Hanafi etc), and were part of a Sufi order(Mevlevi, Sanussi) and the Sufi orders were an important center for fraternal socialization. But the advent of Salafism and Islamic modernism lead to the waning of the relevance of the Sufi orders and replaced their spiritually minded fraternal orders with more political organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. Sufism isn't as apolitical and innocuous as Westerners want it to be but at least its not inherently political like Islamist organizations are. So now the main spaces that provide the fraternal belonging men want are those that are politically dissident ones which can lead to a dark place. The military does too but unlike in the West the military is a highly politicized institution in Islamic countries and in some cases are even worse than the Islamists so not really a great alternative.
 
Last edited:
Kafir-kun said:
Hehe, what a sap. I understand why some leftists are annoyed with the cult of personality that seems to have sprung up around him and I think some people like him for the wrong reasons and I do disagree with some of what he says. But personally I'm glad a guy like him is popular among the right, I much prefer him over guys like Ben Shapiro and Stephan Molyneux even guys on the left like Sam Harris. He's not a polemicist at heart and that's refreshing.

However, I think he misdiagnosis the problem a bit here. I don't really think its feminism that's leading these mean astray. Most men don't give a fuck about feminism or the academic debate he's embroiled in. I really think its the lack of initiation milestones and positive fraternal organizations. Things like conscription in Europe and marriage in traditional cultures acted as initiations into institutions that turned boys into men. I'm not saying we need to bring those things back but since nothing filled the void they left young men sort of wander out of adolescence into young adulthood and beyond without clear direction.

When it comes to fraternal organizations we still have them(the military, sports, fraternities) but they're the exception in that most young men aren't funneled into them and they're not always positive since they're not designed or approached with the idea of providing positive fraternal atmosphere. The classic, stereotypical fraternity is a great example of a toxic fraternal atmosphere which advances a perverse value set. Gangs are another one though they're obviously not a formal institution. Its very common to hear guys who come from disadvantaged backgrounds to talk about how sports or the military were a positive influence in their life when other guys from their neighborhood fell in with the wrong crowd and I think its because a positive fraternal atmosphere can have a really transformative effect on boys/men.
Click to expand...

'Fraternal organizations' are something Feminists (and the ideology behind it) work to dismantle because it breeds 'toxic masculinity'. The NeoMarxist underpinning does in large part aim to deconstruct society and men (especially of the majority demographic) are standing in the way of that.

Now obviously only the radical left adopts that sort of perspective, but they are just a symptom of a much wider ideological push that is society wide, as they are churned out of the education systems like ideological soldiers.

So the general messages to young men that come from the society they are immersed in are changing and some of those messages are that they are a problem, and that is ideologically driven. Sort of like a slow conversion of a society to a new religion, or like how Marxism-Leninism was the prevailing ideology in the soviet union. The ideology that is creeping in undoubtedly will have a negative effect on those who it aims to deconstruct.

And of course there are many factors and that is just one. I generally agree with what you are saying.
 
EndlessCritic said:


Uh oh. Peterson said something potentially offensive 2 years ago.
Click to expand...


Hah, given the number of people that will have already been going over his history with a fine tooth comb looking for dirt on him, I have to suspect that there is more to that tweet that makes it less useful than it appears at first glance.
 
IDL said:
Hah, given the number of people that will have already been going over his history with a fine tooth comb looking for dirt on him, I have to suspect that there is more to that tweet that makes it less useful than it appears at first glance.
Click to expand...
Almost certainly it relates to a plot point in an orphan x novel, but I haven't seen any confirmation.
 
Kafir-kun said:
Hehe, what a sap. I understand why some leftists are annoyed with the cult of personality that seems to have sprung up around him and I think some people like him for the wrong reasons and I do disagree with some of what he says. But personally I'm glad a guy like him is popular among the right, I much prefer him over guys like Ben Shapiro and Stephan Molyneux even guys on the left like Sam Harris. He's not a polemicist at heart and that's refreshing.

However, I think he misdiagnosis the problem a bit here. I don't really think its feminism that's leading these mean astray. Most men don't give a fuck about feminism or the academic debate he's embroiled in. I really think its the lack of initiation milestones and positive fraternal organizations. Things like conscription in Europe and marriage in traditional cultures acted as initiations into institutions that turned boys into men. I'm not saying we need to bring those things back but since nothing filled the void they left young men sort of wander out of adolescence into young adulthood and beyond without clear direction.

When it comes to fraternal organizations we still have them(the military, sports, fraternities) but they're the exception in that most young men aren't funneled into them and they're not always positive since they're not designed or approached with the idea of providing positive fraternal atmosphere. The classic, stereotypical fraternity is a great example of a toxic fraternal atmosphere which advances a perverse value set. Gangs are another one though they're obviously not a formal institution. Its very common to hear guys who come from disadvantaged backgrounds to talk about how sports or the military were a positive influence in their life when other guys from their neighborhood fell in with the wrong crowd and I think its because a positive fraternal atmosphere can have a really transformative effect on boys/men.
Click to expand...


That's a really good post filled with good thoughts.

I think something that flies under the radar but really is important is on this side of the pond, it's a bit more of a closed society (as compared to Europe) and people are more consumed by vapid conversation and media.

I think men and women are socialized differently in the sense that men are honed to be interested in the world (economics, science, politics) and view the world first, and their role in it second.

Women about themselves in first, and about the immediate world around them (i.e. gossip rags, instagram is 60-40 women and used much more for selfies as compared to how men use it as best as I can tell).

But the trend is social media, video games, etc has tilted more of the vapid past time for men.

c5762a-20160923-girlslifeboyslife.jpg


And I will say that another thing is the young of today don't have alive parents who fought in a great war - we have abundance and security - from being hunters and gatherers for most of our history we are obese and throw a ton of food in the garbage.

We're in an unprecedented time where physical security in a partner is on the backburner, but I question if biologically and evolutionarily their might be something to an instinctual attraction to men that don't have a practical benefit any more. So the world has changed in a way that ultra intelligent people our at our fingertips and of tremendous practical use, yet I think biologically sapiosexuality hasn't caught up to this.
 
BTW, on the Channel 4 interview, I think the interviewer is getting too much heat. She was VERY useful because she stuck to the speaking points, and JP shot them down masterfully. That should really hit home with the people who use the same talking points the interviewer did. The interview would not be the needed viral hit if she approached it in another way. So I think we should be very thankful for the interviewer sticking to a script that espoused the common (and somewhat primitive) arguments that the every-day person tends to have ingrained in their head. Reality is she did a LOT of people a great service.
 
CEROVFC said:
BTW, on the Channel 4 interview, I think the interviewer is getting too much heat. She was VERY useful because she stuck to the speaking points, and JP shot them down masterfully. That should really hit home with the people who use the same talking points the interviewer did. The interview would not be the needed viral hit if she approached it in another way. So I think we should be very thankful for the interviewer sticking to a script that espoused the common (and somewhat primitive) arguments that the every-day person tends to have ingrained in their head. Reality is she did a LOT of people a great service.
Click to expand...

Haha she certainly did, but totally by accident. That certainly was not her intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,543
Messages
58,295,814
Members
175,999
Latest member
joshvegas

Share this page

Back
Top